Well, calling it 'Hard Evidence' to prove a theory of a multiverse is certainly not very scientific. Even when Einstein predicted the offset in the position of stars around the sun due to the suns mass when taking a picture during an eclipse wasn't hard evidence, it was only good evidence to support his theories and show they were able to predict the positions.

If there is hard evidence that would mean it isn't a theory anymore, but actual indisputable fact. The existence of atoms used to be a theory, but today we have hard evidence, e.g. we can actually view them in the highest resolution microscopes.

The thing about scientific theories is that you don't prove them to be true. In science, you never prove things to be true. All you do is find evidence in support of a theory. The only proof in science is proof that a scientific theory is false.

We still don't know what an atom looks like. All we see is the "shell" created by the electron cloud. We do not see the nucleus, and we definitely can't see each proton and neutron.

You see by your definition of hard evidence, this is as well. What we view with the WMAP or Planck Observatory is really not different than what we view with the microscope. Both are just images rendered from the detection of particles...

IMO there is a huge difference between observing the actual thing and observing something theorized to be evidence for something else.

IMO there is a huge difference between observing the actual thing and observing something theorized to be evidence for something else.

Well, that all depends what the theory is (IMO). Atomic structure was a mathematically scrutinized and debated theory just as this is. So far, they both stand up.

edit: Atomic structure was a prediction of chemistry, and was used to predict further chemistry before the tech was available to even come close to "viewing" them. I really think there's not a lot of difference.Edited by un-midas touch - 6/3/13 at 1:56pm

I'm quite disappointed that anything Daily Mail has been passed off as anywhere near factual or accurate. Without even clicking the link, there's a whole raft of jokes regarding the FUD they'd spread, next week the headline will be 'Immigrants from another universe to flood UK borders' or 'Diana found alive and well in second universe!'

I would even give that Nazi supporting piece of crap they call a newspaper the page hits by clicking though....

If there is hard evidence that would mean it isn't a theory anymore, but actual indisputable fact. The existence of atoms used to be a theory, but today we have hard evidence, e.g. we can actually view them in the highest resolution microscopes.

Completely 100% wrong.

A fact and a theory are two very different things, one will never turn into the other.

A fact is an observation. eg. Things evolve, or gravity pulls things together, or diseases happen.
A theory is an explanation for those observations. eg. theory of evolution by natural selection, general theory of relativity, germ theory.

The atomic theory is still a thing, it didn't go away or turn into a fact.